Trump should cancel the uranium deal

[UKHistory]

I agree with those here who say the uranium deal was bad policy for the US--at least on the surface.

So in the spirit of making America great again, we should advocate that the president work with congress to void the uranium deal.

The contract is tougher than say the Paris accords in some ways. But if we can get UofL to renegotiate the yummy disgrace, we can get our uranium back.

[dan_bgblue]

Do Bill and Hillary have the funds to pay back to get a deal done?

[UKHistory]

Do Bill and Hillary have the funds to pay back to get a deal done?

Immaterial. Whatever level of hand washing took place between the clintons and other cabinet secretaries who approved the deal. I am sure there is a law that could seize the uranium. There might be a law suit to counter the action, but it could be done to protect national security.

[Doc]

I dont think dan was being serious. The Clintons are savy enough that while it was one hand washes the other transaction, it wasnt one that would require a refund were it to be voided. Also Trump has been solid about honoring deals made, even bad ones. Take the Iranian nuclear debacle for axample. . He may not like them and be vocal about it but he honors them until renegotiating them. Of course he gets no credit for that

[KeithKSR]

I don't think the deal can be undone. You can't sell a car and then go back four years later and get your car back.

[UKHistory]

When it comes to national security or as the Indians learned, national convenience, we can do a lot.

Uranium is a national security issue. If this was a bad deal, nationalize. Either pay the owner or not and get it back.

I just read a transcript of trump's conversation with the Australian prime minister. If trump can get that ticked over 1,250 refugees, he should be able to stand up to the Russians or whoever and protect our own damn uranium.

[kingcat]

Through the Uranium One deal, the Russian state-owned nuclear energy company does now have control over 20 percent of U.S. uranium extraction capacity.
But it cannot export the uranium.

As stated..

NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will
remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.
..United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[dan_bgblue]

Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license,

Good info kingcat, thanks. Given the info from the article, I wonder what prevents either or both of the companies from selling the product domestically to a company that does hold the necessary export license to export the uranium?

[kingcat]

Good info kingcat, thanks. Given the info from the article, I wonder what prevents either or both of the companies from selling the product domestically to a company that does hold the necessary export license to export the uranium?

I think we can logically assume that all the agencies (nine I believe), including Homeland Security would have to sign off on it.

And as I read it and aside from what would seem the obvious oversight of such materials by national security entities, to attempt to export it by any means would trigger a red light with the existing U.S. subsidiaries who, you would think ,must be strictly monitored.
I guess that also begs the question what are those subsidiaries?

U.S. subsidiaries will
remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property.

Basically, the profits are what they (Russians') are entitled to and nothing else. (bad enough imo)

Those subsidiaries are also responsible for maintaining the finances to decommission the sites in the fiture.
I assume with monies supplied by the parent company (Russians) who are themselves not qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations.

Again, as I understand it.

[kingcat]

Perhaps this might explain why there has been no action by the current President to correct the situation. Due to having adequate safeguards already in place and all.
Any one of the nine federal agencies could have lain the initial deal on the desk of the president, then President Obama, for approval or denial. But all nine allowed the transaction as required by federal law.
I think its safe to say the materials themselves are, and were secure.

Unless someone has information I haven't seen about its export.

[UKHistory]

My understanding (and I don't have or rather remember the source) is that some uranium was moved to Canada to company owned by the Russians. Not a lot but some. That is not good.

What I find very fascinating in this conversation (and granted many different individuals are commenting), is the group general agreement that the uranium deal must be OK or we can live with it.

Which is interesting because both Obama and Clinton have been taken to task for their unAmerican decision to approve the sale, but now that I raise the very legitimate question why the Kremlin's Candidate has not worked to stop it, the deal is OK.

It is either good policy or bad. An idea doesn't lose its merit based on who comes up with it. It should not anyway. The fact is Trump has criticized Clinton and Obama for the uranium sale and has not done anything about it.

Trump puts a disclaimer out regarding the new sanctions imposed on Russia. He signed the bill that was veto-proof and actually Trump-proof due to what even Republicans in the Senate characterize as odd behavior and support #45 demonstrates to Russia.

For those who would defend the president's agenda, I would ask that you judge his decision through the lens of whether you would it think sound policy if Obama and Clinton had done it. I actually don't think it was good policy. And I think the previous was foolish in the decision to approve. I think that if this president is going to change course on US agreements like Paris Accords, he could void the uranium deal.

Too often human beings find reasons to justify the actions of "their guy" over the enemy. I certainly did with Gillispie who is just a big a disaster as the president--except Billy Clyde could not extinguish life on the planet. He could just ruin Kentucky Basketball to the point life might not have been worth living.

[dan_bgblue]

History, I really do not see much support for the deal in this thread, however I have learned something about the deal that I did not know prior to this discussion.

First sentence of your OP...........

I agree with those here who say the uranium deal was bad policy for the US--at least on the surface.

For me kingcat's posts provided info that was not "on the surface" for me. While I still do not think sharing uranium with Russia was a wise move, it is apparent to me that I do not know enough to make that judgement. Whether the sitting President should take action on the previous deal is not obvious to me at this time.

[UKHistory]

And there has been some comments in other threads discussing the president where a common defense of him is to point out the horrible decisions of Obama and Secretary Clinton.

The point is that the deal is considered unpatriotic and UnAmerican in other threads and when I raise the point that Trump could or should do something and Trump references the deal as a pro Russia move that Clinton approved (a Woman he wants investigated at least this past week again imprisoned) it is dismissed.

I think an objective reading of the threads where the uranium has been discussed would support my position.

[Doc]

What I find very fascinating in this conversation (and granted many different individuals are commenting), is the group general agreement that the uranium deal must be OK or we can live with it.

I think that conclusion is incorrect. I don't think anybody is "OK" with the deal. Most find the hypocrisy utterly mindboggling but that is another issue. I liken it to the Iranian deal. I don't think its OK and I don't believe anybody on this board thinks its OK, nor does a large majority of the nation yet our President and congress at the time approved of the deal, but UNLIKE the left when the GOP is in the white house, we recognize the authority of the elected President (regardless of party) to make foreign policy, even bad foreign policy. When an agreement is made, it is incumbent that we as a nation uphold our end. Likewise, I don't believe sending uranium to Russia or Russian controlled interests to be a policy that we should follow, but I'm not President, nor was I consulted prior to the arrangement. Its also one reason I'd never vote for Hilary because CLEARLY SHE DOES. She has no problem crawling into their bed so long as they make a donation to her foundation so she can funnel the money to wherever she sees fit. Good thing she only authorized that deal as opposed to having an underling meet with a Russian lawyer

And before you bring the trade agreements up, I'll address... those are ONGOING agreements, deals that continually actively affect us. Those deals were not cancelled but renegotiated. Cancelling is a unilateral move to void an agreement, which is not what was done. Trade agreements that were addressed on the side of both parts. Granted, the US put pressure to renegotiate, as they should when we are at a disadvantage.

[kingcat]

If they did move any uranium then the subsidiary company who was licensed to do so has endangered the public and broken the terms the fed imposed.

And according to the assistant AG our president has not requested an investigation of anyone.

"But I can tell you the president has not directed us to investigate particular people. That wouldn't be right. That's not the way we operate."
..Rosenstein said.

[kingcat]

One thing we should remember, CFIUS ( Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States which the treasury dept. chairs) does not release information publically regarding such deals. The only ones privy to the facts are the members and the President. And so the president has facts now which he did not have prior to taking office.

Facts which he can, and should imo, now release to the public

Confidentiality

In reviewing a transaction, CFIUS considers national security matters and commercially sensitive information provided by the parties. *By law, information filed with CFIUS is subject to strong confidentiality requirements that prohibit disclosure to the public. *Accordingly, CFIUS does not disclose whether parties to any transaction have filed notices with CFIUS, nor does CFIUS disclose the results of any review. *When a transaction is referred to the President, however, the decision of the President is announced publicly.

[KeithKSR]

The big issue with the uranium deal was the fact that the Podesta brothers and other Dem donors made millions off of it.

[kingcat]

The big issue with the uranium deal was the fact that the Podesta brothers and other Dem donors made millions off of it.

And I understand questioning that. Plus Id support investigations aimed at getting to the bottom of things. Also I wonder why the president does not actively pursue it and limit the less than sincere soundbites which only serve to stir the emotions of his base.

Although there were certainly questionable donations and the appearance of malfeasance, even acknowledged by Clinton, there are some seemingly valid arguments both ways as to the extent of it. I wont post those here because, one; they would not be well received and two; I feel no need to defend any of them. Yet if someone wants to gather arguments by both sides and find the middle ground a simple search will do the job.
That type discussion is met with the "fake news" mantra by both sides now however, and is fruitless.

Its not about facts as much as winning the argument despite of them. And that I find is a dangerous and hopeless path our country has decided to traverse. Truth is no longer a virtue in our society, but is deemed worthy of sacrificing if it justifies the ends.

Those are the real and present threats to America. That we would sacrifice our values and virtues as a nation to protect them. Today, the fruits of the American spirit are not born of good..on either political side. And the self proclaimed center, has totally disappeared without even a voice.

[UKHistory]

The big issue with the uranium deal was the fact that the Podesta brothers and other Dem donors made millions off of it.

The big deal is that US uranium is owned by a foreign power. Anyone profitting illegally is a concern. But national security is far outweighs any type of profiteering.

[UKHistory]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...out-hillary-c/

Here is a link to broad overview of the situation. I just googled it. I can't speak to its accuracy but as we saw articles Fox news and even more far right sites, take this with a grain of salt.

[CitizenBBN]

Through the Uranium One deal, the Russian state-owned nuclear energy company does now have control over 20 percent of U.S. uranium extraction capacity.
But it cannot export the uranium.

As stated..

NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will
remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.
..United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Unfortunately, that's misleading.

Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.

Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...m-company.html


Now seriously folks, do you think Putin and his economic allies have donated millions to the Clintons, spent millions elsewhere, and gone to all these lengths just for bragging rights that they own US uranium but it can't ever leave the US? Seriously?

They'll get a bunch of it out. Even the NYT is reporting 25% or so, and that's just through one 3rd party company. With all the layers of companies these guys control and all their deep pockets and political ties, I will guarantee you personally that a big chunk of it will find its way abroad.

As for reversing the deal, isn't it interesting that Trump has been the one accused of being a "fascist" who is going to shred the Constitution, and yet the solution to this is to simply seize assets legally obtained like some 3rd world dictator. Now maybe he makes that move, and there hopefully are legal means under which he can take action to prevent the loss of such strategic resources, probably by proving they are illegally exporting uranium, but if there isn't such a law we'll have to go through Congress b/c hopefully we are still a nation of laws.

I hope there is surely some legal means to deal with this, but the idea that it's a) not a problem, or b) a problem we can solve by just being corrupt with regard to the rule of law a second time, is a false narrative IMO.

[CitizenBBN]

And I understand questioning that. Plus Id support investigations aimed at getting to the bottom of things. Also I wonder why the president does not actively pursue it and limit the less than sincere soundbites which only serve to stir the emotions of his base.

Because for some unknown reason Americans have developed this completely false notion that the Department of Justice isn't simply an extension of the PResident, and should for some unknown reason operate as an independent body without any particular oversight.

B/c it's the DOJ that would pursue such an investigation, but if Trump ordered one I'm sure we'd have his political opponents and DOJ leakers screaming about his tampering with the process of justice, etc.

That's all bullshit btw, b/c the Constitution is completely and utterly clear that the President is charged with enforcing the laws of the land, and the DOJ is just a modern bureaucratic contrivance that exists only in recent times and is utterly meaningless in Constitutional terms, but that's how modern politics has abused the basic understanding of the separation of powers.

The President is the supreme arbiter of the enforcement of laws in the US. The Congress makes the laws. If the PResident is found to have himself or through his administration violated those laws there is a built in mechanism, impeachment, for dealing with it. Nowhere is there any notion that those who work for the PResident to enforce the laws have any independence from him whatsoever. They serve at his pleasure, and if enough people or Congressmen decide he's doing a bad job of it they can then act against him between those powers.

But now we have a whole bevy of largely un-regulated, un-answerable bureaucrats in every agency from the DOJ to national intelligence, who think they are anointed to make these decisions and not those elected directly by the People.

[CitizenBBN]

BTW, that's true of all Presidents. I'ts just that Obama, who had his own Attorney General held in Contempt of Congress for the first time ever, had the media on his side and understood that really the only recourse to his actions is either outrage of the People leading to loss of political capital or action by the majority of Congress.

So Holder, despite withholding records and flouting the orders of multiple federal courts, walked away without a scratch. The only difference is Trump doesn't have the support of his party or the press, whereas they completely circled their wagons for Obama.

[UKHistory]

Unfortunately, that's misleading.

Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.

Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...m-company.html


Now seriously folks, do you think Putin and his economic allies have donated millions to the Clintons, spent millions elsewhere, and gone to all these lengths just for bragging rights that they own US uranium but it can't ever leave the US? Seriously?

They'll get a bunch of it out. Even the NYT is reporting 25% or so, and that's just through one 3rd party company. With all the layers of companies these guys control and all their deep pockets and political ties, I will guarantee you personally that a big chunk of it will find its way abroad.

As for reversing the deal, isn't it interesting that Trump has been the one accused of being a "fascist" who is going to shred the Constitution, and yet the solution to this is to simply seize assets legally obtained like some 3rd world dictator. Now maybe he makes that move, and there hopefully are legal means under which he can take action to prevent the loss of such strategic resources, probably by proving they are illegally exporting uranium, but if there isn't such a law we'll have to go through Congress b/c hopefully we are still a nation of laws.

I hope there is surely some legal means to deal with this, but the idea that it's a) not a problem, or b) a problem we can solve by just being corrupt with regard to the rule of law a second time, is a false narrative IMO.

The state was not corrupt when it renegotiated the yum deal. I'd think if the deal was corrupt, the Russians broke th terms or if we deem it not in the best interests of the American people we could change the deal.

Now the foundation donations and clintons speaking fee are legitimate red flags. But other cabinet secretaries ok'd the deal

But trump has attacked multiple trade deals, criticized our allies, blamed congress for deteriorating relations with Russia and decried the uranium deal. All I am saying as president he could address the uranium deal itself and not just tweet and bitch.